The Subtle Undoing Of Barack Obama

March 15, 2008

I’ve long thought that people will tell you exactly who they are by how they see the world, that a person who accuses many people of being a thief, is himself a thief. That conspirators sees conspiracies behind every door, that racist view the world as racist, that cold hearted murders believe most people kill. It’s human nature to do so as people justify their evils as normal behavior thus preserving their own ‘goodness’ and normalcy.

I’ve been observing something that’s happening on the side and growing. Something that seems to be common knowledge but somehow remains an unspoken secret, that to criticize Barack Obama means one is a racist. Case in point Geraldine Ferraro’s forced resignation for words that were taken out of context. I have to sort of contain my laughter on this, since Geraldine helped enable this behavior, and now it’s come back and bit her.

I understood what Geraldine Ferraro was saying, not that the only reason Barack Obama had as much support is because he’s black, but that people are supporting him in part because they want a black man to be the President. Think about this, why would anybody vote for a guy who won’t put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance, or wear a lapel of an American flag on his blazer, or instead of having an American flag in his office, he’s got Cuban flags with Che Guevara’s face on it, or that his minister of twenty years is a hateful bigot and racist, or that he’s got Louis Farakhan’s endorsement, or that much of his money is coming from overseas? They aren’t so much inspired by Obama the man, but rather the idea of being a part of a historical movement, but at the same time couldn’t the same be said about Hillary Clinton, that the only reason she’s doing well is because she’s a woman, or that she’s really riding the coat tails of her husband?

Yet why is it that we can criticize Hillary in such a way and not be considered sexist, but to say that about Barack, Ferraro resigns from Clinton’s campaign staff? John McCain has already begun to tip toe around criticizing Barack Obama, refusing, even lashing out at conservatives for using Barack Hussien Obama’s actual middle name. Imagine that, we’re not even allowed to say his middle birth name. I guess having a middle name and a last name that sounds Muslim isn’t politically expedient, so instead of him changing his name, the rest of us have to change our ways and ignore it.

Something rubs me the wrong way about Barack Obama and I think most of America is going to end up agreeing with me on this issue. You see, we’ve have a great tradition in this country, one that precedes the United States Constitution and that is this, we love to criticize our leaders. We’ve criticized King George, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, as we have Ronald Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton, Bush sequel, and everybody in between. We’ve even assassinated Presidents, Kennedy and Lincoln come to mind. We’ve said awful things about our Presidents, we’ve accused them of being drunks, of being coke addicts, infidelity, and that’s us on our better days. It is our tradition because deep down each us know as long as we have the right to criticize our leaders, we have some freedom left.

There are events that are happening that is inadvertently going to cause some blowback against Obama’s candidacy.

It hasn’t been completely extreme with Barack Obama, but the criticism of Barack Obama has in large part been silent because white people too often choose to stay quiet rather than take the risk of being called a racist. The dirty secret is white people are too often fearful of giving advice to minorities because their solutions are too often unjustly tagged as being racist, thus they must be racist, and all solutions to the minority community’s problems are relegated and exclusive to the minority leaders, many of which are more vested in keeping minorities oppressed and down trodden rather than helping them left their selves up.

Racism is a term that is no longer used to achieve equality, but rather to excuse bad behavior. What we, as a nation, are forgetting is that color of skin can not and does not excuse bad behavior. Imagine six white kids beating up one black kid? Is it justified that the six white kids be punished? Yet when six black kids beat up one white kid in Jena, La there was rallies and calls to free the six kids. Should they have been charged with attempted murder? I don’t know, probably not, I wasn’t there so I really don’t know. But to demand that they be set free? They still did wrong to another human being. They should not be celebrated, they were cowards who couldn’t fight their own individual fights without some help. We had a term to describe guys like that and that word usually preceded cat.

But I digress, whenever the story was told it would start of with “First there was a noose…” but nobody ever said that the noose was even related to the six kids attacking Justin Barker, and then there was the gun point incident, which again wasn’t tied to Justin Barker, yet he somehow deserved to get beat up? According to the attorney who is now representing Mychal Bell in the civil suit filed by the Barker family it is. Apparently, now we find out that Justin Barker pulled a gun out on Mychal Bell earlier that same day they jumped Justin, but one glaring problem with this, why is this new information? When Mychal Bell was on trial for attempted murder, we never once heard the story about Justin pulling a gun out on Bell. That’s a pretty important piece of information don’t you think? It’s a pretty steep omission considering that makes a huge difference from attempted murder and a man’s Right to self defense, don’t you think?

So why wasn’t this extremely important accusation brought to light when Mychal Bell could actually have his life wasting away in prison, but when it’s only money it’s a major issue? I can only come up with two conclusions why Mychal Bell didn’t talk about this before, and that’s either he wanted to go to jail to be a thug, or he’s lying about it now. Either way, this severely undermines his credibility. Do you think white people aren’t noticing this as well?

The Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, is hiding behind racism, saying that he’s been called the N-word more times in the past couple of weeks than he has in his entire lifetime, and that his and his family’s life is more important than some Nielsen ratings, whatever that was supposed to mean. But racism in Detroit? Against a black mayor? Isn’t Detroit something like 81% black? Isn’t it a black city council that is the source of his criticism? Yet somehow it’s not his behavior at the root of his problems, it’s racism. Racism is a term not to describe discrimination, but rather to allow color of skin to excuse bad behavior.

And let’s not forget Mayor Nagin’s chocolate city comments or that William Jefferson is embroiled in his own scandal, or Georgia’s Cynthia McKinney thinking she had the right to punch a cop. I’m not saying that there aren’t good legislators out there that are black, there are, there are several. Baton Rouge’s mayor Kip Holden for the most part has done a good job; ask people around here and he’s well loved, for the most part. But this isn’t what people are seeing and too many black leaders are undermining Barack Obama’s chances of becoming President.

Turning on white Democrats like Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro because they oppose Barack Obama sends a message out to white people, which still makes up 70% of the population, that Barack Obama will be protected from any criticism by the term ‘racist’ and the more white people think about that, the more they are going to look at the bad side of leadership in the black community and ask their self, are they really that confident that Barack Obama won’t treat America like Kwame Kilpatrick treats Detroit?

Ultimately white people, 70% of the American population, won’t vote for Barack Obama, not because they are racist, they aren’t. They won’t vote for the guy out of resistance of political intimidation, to hold onto a great American tradition of being able to criticize our President, something that hasn’t really been allowed with Obama’s candidacy.

Rochester-based Eastman Kodak takes on Shutterfly

Daily Record (Rochester, NY) December 16, 2010 | Denise M Champagne Eastman Kodak Co. and Shutterfly Inc. are suing each other over what they claim are picture-making patent infringements.

Kodak filed the first suit last week in U.S. district court in Delaware, and in a statement said it “own[s] fundamental patents relating to digital image uploading, storage, organizing, editing, sharing and order fulfillment.” The complaint alleges Shutterfly has infringed on five different Kodak patents, three related to the “system and method for selecting photographic images using index prints.” All three involve Kodak’s in-store “Create-a-Print” stations where customers can make and adjust prints from inserted negatives, and the patent systems were assigned to Kodak by local inventors. Kodak accuses Shutterfly of using the first patent to make and sell photographic prints through its website, shutterfly.com. go to website shutterfly coupon codes

The second and third counts claim Shutterfly used two other patents to make and sell image products and services such as prints and photo books through its website.

A fourth count claims Shutterfly used Kodak’s “image handling method and system incorporated coded instructions” to make and sell image products and services through its website.

That patent relates to image signals corresponding to hardcopy photographs easily identified by the user for communication to a hub station for retrieval.

The final count claims Shutterfly used Kodak’s “method of processing a roll of exposed photographic film containing photographic images into corresponding digital images and then distributing visual prints produced from the visual images.” That patent relates to processing a digital image of a photographic image and distributing visual prints in various formats.

Kodak is asking the court to make Shutterfly stop using its patents. The company is also claiming unspecified damages and asking the court to award it three times the damages amount assessed, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest on damages. Finally, Kodak is demanding a jury trial for all triable issues.

Kodak is represented by Francis DiGiovanni and Chad S.C. Stover of the Wilmington, Del. firm Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz LLP.

Shutterfly responded Monday with a suit of its own. It notes in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Dec. 13 that is has received the Kodak lawsuit and filed a patent infringement complaint against Eastman Kodak and Kodak Imaging Network Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. go to website shutterfly coupon codes

“The company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this action and intends to defend this matter vigorously,” the SEC document says.

Shutterfly, according to the SEC document, alleges Kodak infringes on one or more of its patents by making, using, offering for sale, selling in the U.S. and/or importing into the U.S. the Kodak Gallery software.

Shutterfly is seeking an injunction, damages, treble damages and costs including attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Denise M Champagne


4 comments
The Numbers Guy
The Numbers Guy

Three words that will ultimately undo the Obama candidacy now or during the general election campaign: "Where's the beef ?"...in most parts of the country, beef outranks hope.

Olcoot
Olcoot

Just to make a point of refocusing on truth: "Prejudice" is by definition "UNREASONED hatred or distaste". "Racial Prejudice" is "Unreasoned hatred or opposition to someone based on race". "Phobia" (as in homophobia, since these principles carry over to that issue) is by definition "Unreasoned fear of some thing, to the extent that it interrupts normal functioning". (Note that 'dislike' of something is not a phobia.) It is worth reminding people who are so eager to throw up the accusation of prejudice (particularly racial prejudice) of these facts. Even though I was raised in the 50s & 60s, racial prejudice was never a part of my upbringing: I saw it around me (as I occasionally do today), but it was always identified as wrong by both parents. I do not hate Obama at all: I don't know him that well. While it is not quite true that he would not be where he is in the polls/elections if he were not black, it is certainly true that being black is a strong contributor to his rapid rise. He is where he is in large part simply because he is charismatic; and because he has never been held to task on either his political positions or his history. What (or who) does this bring to mind, in our political past? Obama has been favorably compared by some to JFK, which is utter nonsense. While JFK was indeed charismatic and dynamic, he was also concrete, specific and outspoken on his political agenda. I remember those debates, broadcast live on our black and white TV; and even as a kid I remember being awed by his quick and pointed responses on issues. No, the person that Obama brings to mind is the first black president, Slick Willy. Remember, folks? Pretty, popular, fast-talking, s-m-o-o-t-h, and slick (Teflon Bill). Even after he was elected, no one had a clue what his plans were, because he never got around to talking about his political agenda: he didn't need to ... he had the election sewed up on Charisma. And he was SO charismatic that he pulled it off two times, even after four years of absolutely crazy plans, program, and advocacies. Everyone keeps telling me to calm down about Obama: sooner or later, it will become obvious that he's all flash and no blast. But I keep remembering that indeed the country did finally figure that out about Bill Clinton, but only after eight disasterous years in the White House. That scares me, folks. Really.

Len
Len

Not to put too fine a point on it , eh Union? Still, Avman's point is right on. We tap dance around saying this stuff as white conservatives because we fear the accusations of racism. The honest truth is that racism is not the threat to polite society that it once was. It is now a club that those like Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan wield with impunity. What they fail to admit is that they are as guilty as the people they accuse, and in many cases, moreso. The black community would be far better served to leave behind the likes of Mayor Wonka in New Orleans, and Rev Jeremiah White and look to the real black leaders. Bill Cosby, J.C. Watts, Clearance Thomas, Condoleeza Rice and Alan Keyes.

4unionparish
4unionparish

Avman, First, the Presidential race disgusts me. "Hillbilly" is no better than a common thief lacking in even the most basic moral character. There is no reason AT ALL to believe she was/is not fully aware of EVERYTHING Billary has done/is doing. (See below) Barrack Hussein Obama AND his wife are racist pigs just like their preacher. It is totally inconceivable, that after twenty years, these two do not know every aspect of their church and its leaders. If BHO does not know the truth about his church and his preacher, then he is also the most ignorant member of the Senate and should not be trusted with sharp objects let alone be POTUS. McCain is an obnoxious, "spoiled boy" hothead, idiot. He is neither a Republican nor a conservative and I have strong doubts about his patriotism and his innocence in the Keating Five incident. "Billary" is a lying rapist that has facilitated and/or committed all sorts of crimes to include murder. He will make Lyndon Johnson look good when they are both in Hell. Ferarro is an incompetent political hack that finally got what she has been dishing out for years. She is especially incompetent in admitting the typical Democrat strategy when she said neither her or Barrack would have been on the ticket if they had not been a woman and a black, respectively, and confessing neither is qualified to be near the White House. Cynthia McKinney is no better than Barrack's wife and likely an active member of the Black Panthers/Blank Muslems which are no different than the KKK, and it's #1 member, "Calypso Louie" is no different than David Duke, but likely a bit more insane with that "Mothership" crap. Mychal Bell and Kwame would ikely fit in well at Barrack's church and Bell's lawyers are scumbags of the worst kind. "Choco Ray" Nagin would be a much better Mayor if he had his mouth sewn shut. This would require a rectal extraction of his head. Jefferson might be the smartest one in the bunch. He seems to keep a lower profile and is smart enough not to trust a bank with his illgotten gains. Did I leave anyone out? Too bad you didn't mention Charles "Cocaine" Jones. I have a lot of material on that scumbag, and leaving out Edwin "Fast Eddie" Edwards, Capo di tutti capi, was really disappointing. Now, given your initial comment, I must be the worst of them all. And I thought we were friends.

Please help Louisiana Conservative Dot Com. Please donate $5, $10, or whatever you can afford to help our cause today!

Like Box